Evaluating Types and Features of Camera Traps in Ecological Studies: A Guide for Researchers

  • Don E. Swann
  • Kae Kawanishi
  • Jonathan Palmer


Choosing a camera trap for use in an ecological study can be a difficult task, as there are many different types of commercial units available. Camera traps vary greatly in cost and ease of use as well as in trigger mechanisms, camera type, power requirements, and features available. Most importantly, they vary greatly in their performance in different field situations, including in different climates, types of studies, and target species. In this paper we present an overview of the basic technology of camera traps, including new and developing technology, and review the literature on problems frequently encountered in the field. We present a framework for assisting researchers in deciding which types of systems and features are best for different field situations. Camera traps enable researchers to study aspects of animal ecology that were previously difficult or impossible to study, but like all technologies they have limitations. Choosing the correct trap involves evaluating trade-offs between various features vs. simplicity in the field; sturdiness and battery longevity vs. weight and size, and other factors. Knowledge and experience with camera traps prior to using them in field research will greatly improve their successful use in ecological studies.


Alternate Current Rechargeable Batterie Camera Trap Camera Trapping Robotic Camera 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Azlan, M. J. and D. S. K. Sharma. 2002. First record of melanistic tapirs in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Wildlife and Parks 20:123–124Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J., D. Ramsey, G. Nugent, B. Warburton, and M. Efford. 2005. A method for estimating wildlife detection probabilities in relation to home-range use: insights from a field study on the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Wildlife Research 32:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleich, V. C., R. T. Bowyer, and J. D. Wehausen. 1997. Sexual segregation in mountain sheep: resources or predation? Wildlife Monographs 134:1–50Google Scholar
  4. Bridges, A. S., J. A. Fox, C. Olfenbuttel, M. R. Vaughan, and M. B. Vaughan. 2004a. American black bear denning behavior: observations and applications using remote photography. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridges, A. S., M. R. Vaughan, and S. Klenzendorf. 2004b. Seasonal variation in American black bear Ursus americanus activity patterns: quantification via remote photography. Wildlife Biology 10:277–284Google Scholar
  6. Carthew, S. M. and E. Slater. 1991. Monitoring animal activity with automated photography. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:689–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claridge, A. W., G. Mifsud, J. Dawson, and M. J. Saxon. 2004. Use of infrared digital cameras to investigate the behaviour of cryptic species. Wildlife Research 31:645–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cresswell, W., J. Lind, U. Kaby, J. L. Quinn, and S. Jakobsson. 2003. Does an opportunistic predator preferentially attack non-vigilant prey? Animal Behaviour 66:643–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutler, T. L. and D. E. Swann. 1999. Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:571–581Google Scholar
  10. Delgado, E., L. Villalba, J. Sanderson, C. Napolitano, M. Berna, and J. Esquivel. 2004. Capture of an Andean cat in Bolivia. Cat News 40:2Google Scholar
  11. DeVault, T. L., I. L. Brisbin, and O. E. Rhodes, Jr. 2004. Factors influencing the acquisition of rodent carrion by vertebrate scavengers and decomposers. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:502–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fedriani, J. M., T. K. Fuller, R. Sauvajot, and E. York. 2000. Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores. Oecologia 125:258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glen, A. S. and C. R. Dickman. 2003. Monitoring bait removal in vertebrate pest control: a comparison using track identification and remote photography. Wildlife Research 30:29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. González-Esteban, J., I. Villate, and I. Irizar. 2004. Assessing camera traps for surveying the European mink, Mustela lutreola (Linnaeus, 1761), distribution. European Journal of Wildlife Research 50:33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grassman, L. I. Jr., M. E. Tewes, and N. J. Silvy. 2005. From the field: armoring the Camtrakker camera-trap in a tropical Asian forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:349–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, M. G. and C. P. van Schaik. 1993. Camera trapping a new tool for the study of elusive rain forest animals. Tropical Biodiversity 1:131–135Google Scholar
  17. Hegglin, D., F. Bontadina, S. Gloor, J. Romer, U. Mueller, U. Breitenmoser, P. Deplazes, S. Glor, and U. Müller. 2004. Baiting red foxes in an urban area: a camera trap study. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1010–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henschel, P. and J. Ray. 2003. Leopards in African rainforests: survey and monitoring techniques. Wildlife Conservation Society Global Carnivore Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirakawa, H. and K. Sayama. 2005. Photographic evidence of predation by martens (Martes melampus) on vespine wasp nests. Bulletin of Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute 4:207–210Google Scholar
  20. Hudson, M. A. R. and D. M. Bird. 2006. An affordable computerized camera technique for monitoring bird nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1455–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huebner, D. P. and S. R. Hurteau. 2007. An economical wireless cavity-nest viewer. Journal of Field Ornithology 78:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, R. M., J. D. Roe, R. Wangchuk, and D. O. Hunter. 2005. Camera-trapping of snow leopards. Cat News 42:19–21Google Scholar
  23. Jacomo, A. T. D. A., L. Silveira, and J. A. F. Diniz. 2004. Niche separation between the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), the crab-eating fox (Dusicyon thous) and the hoary fox (Dusicyon vetulus) in central Brazil. Journal of Zoology 262:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karanth, K. U. and J. D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karanth, K. U. and J. D. Nichols, editors. 2002. Monitoring tigers and their prey: a manual for researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  26. Karanth, U., J. D. Nichols, N. S. Kumar, and J. E. Hines. 2006. Assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic capture-recapture sampling. Ecology 87:2925–2937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kawanishi, K. 2002. Population status of tigers (Panthera tigris) in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FLGoogle Scholar
  28. Kawanishi, K. and M. E. Sunquist. 2004. Conservation status of tigers in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation 120:329–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khorozyan, I. 2004. Strengthening local capacities for biodiversity conservation in Armenia. Final report submitted to The Whitley Awards, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The Trailmaster camera system for detecting wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:505–508Google Scholar
  31. Laurance, W. F. and J. D. Grant. 1994. Photographic identification of ground-nest predators in Australian tropical rainforest. Wildlife Research 21:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liemgruber, P., W. J. McShea, and J. H. Rappole. 1994. Predation on artificial nests in large forest blocks. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:254–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mace, R. D., S. C. Minta, T. L. Manley, and K. A. Aune. 1994. Estimating grizzly bear population size using camera sightings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:74–83Google Scholar
  34. Maffei, L., E. Cuellar, and A. Noss. 2004. One thousand jaguars (Panthera onca) in Bolivia’s Chaco? Camera trapping in the Kaa-Iya National Park. Journal of Zoology 262:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maffei, L., A. J. Noss, E. Cuéllar, and D. I. Rumiz. 2005. Ocelot (Felis pardalis) population densities, activity, and ranging behaviour in the dry forests of eastern Bolivia: data from camera trapping. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Main, M. B. and L. W. Richardson. 2002. Response of wildlife to prescribed fire in southwest Florida pine flatwoods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:213–221Google Scholar
  37. Major, R. E. 1991. Identification of nest predators by photography, dummy eggs and adhesive tape. Auk 108:190–195Google Scholar
  38. Major, R. E. and G. Gowing. 1994. An inexpensive photographic technique for identifying nest predators at active nests of birds. Wildlife Research 21:657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martyr, D. 1997. Important findings by FFI team in Kerinci Seblat, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 31:80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moruzzi, T. L., T. K. Fuller, R. M. DeGraaf, R. T. Brooks, and W. Li. 2002. Assessing remotely triggered cameras for surveying carnivore distribution. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:380–386Google Scholar
  41. Mudappa, D. 1998. Use of camera-traps to survey small carnivores in the tropical rainforest of Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Small Carnivore Conservation 18:9–11Google Scholar
  42. Nichols, J. D., L. L. Bailey, A. F. O’Connell, Jr., N. W. Talancy, E. H. C. Grant, A. T. Gilbert, E. Annand, T. Husband, and J. Hines. 2008. Occupancy estimation using multiple detection devices. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1321–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Brien, T. G., M. F. Kinnaird, and H. T. Wibisono. 2003. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Connell, A. F. Jr., N. Talancy, L. L. Bailey, J. Sauer, R. Cook, and A. T. Gilbert. 2006. Estimating site occupancy and detection probability parameters for mammals in a coastal ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1625–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Picman, J. and L. M. Schriml. 1994. A camera study of temporal patterns of nest predation in different habitats. Wilson Bulletin 106:456–465Google Scholar
  46. Proudfoot, G. A. 1996. Miniature video-board camera used to inspect natural and artificial nest cavities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:528–530Google Scholar
  47. Rice, C. G. 1995. Trailmaster camera system: the dark side. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:110–111Google Scholar
  48. Rivero, K., D. I. Rumiz, and A. B. Taber. 2005. Differential habitat use by two sympatric brocket deer species (Mazama americana and M. gouazoubira) in a seasonal Chiquitano forest of Bolivia. Mammalia 69:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts, C. W., B. L. Pierce, A. W. Braden, R. R. Lopez, N. J. Silvey, P. A. Frank, and D. Ransom, Jr. 2006. Comparison of camera and road survey estimates for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Savidge, J. A. and T. F. Seibert. 1988. A camera device for monitoring avian nest predation at artificial nests. Journal Wildlife Management 52:291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sequin, E. S., M. M. Jaeger, P. F. Brussard, and R. H. Barrett. 2003. Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:2015–2025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Silver, S. C., L. E. T. Ostro Linde, L. Marsh, L. Maffei, A. J. Noss, M. J. Kelly, R. B. Wallace, H. Gómez, and G. Ayala. 2004. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Soisalo, K. M. and S. M. C. Cavalcanti. 2006. Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture-recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biological Conservation 129:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Surridge, A. K., R. J. Timmins, G. M. Hewitt, and D. J. Bell. 1999. Striped rabbits in Southeast Asia. Nature 400:726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swann, D. E., C. C. Hass, D. C. Dalton, and S. A. Wolf. 2004. Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: an evaluation and review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson, F. R. III and D. E. Burhans. 2003. Predation of songbird nests differs by predator and between field and forest habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:408–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trolle, M. and M. Kéry. 2003. Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Schaik, C. P. and M. Griffiths. 1996. Activity periods of Indonesian rain forest mammals. Biotropica 28:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wallace, R. B., H. Gomez, G. Ayala, and F. Espinoza. 2003. Camera trapping for jaguar (Panthera onca) in the Tuichi Valley, Bolivia. Mastozoologia Neotropica 10:133–139Google Scholar
  60. Wegge, P., C. P. Pokheral, and S. R. Jnawali. 2004. Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Animal Conservation 7:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. York, E. C., T. L. Moruzzi, T. K. Fuller, J. F. Organ, R. M. Sauvajot, and R. M. DeGraaf. 2001. Description and evaluation of a remote camera and triggering system to monitor carnivores. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1228–1237Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saguaro National ParkTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Taman Negara - Main Range Wildlife Corridor ProjectAmpangMalaysia
  3. 3.The Wildlife Conservation SocietyBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations